Knowing and intelligent Miranda waivers remain the cornerstone of our 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination in the United States. Until recently, however, Miranda-related research and practice have focused almost entirely on comprehension of proffered warnings and waivers as opposed to identifying ingrained misconceptions that affect how detainees process this input. The current archival investigation brings together data on Miranda misconceptions for more than 799 detainees in the United States, ranging from 11–67 years of age. Miranda misconceptions were systematically examined on the Miranda Quiz (MQ) and parallel items of the Juvenile Miranda Quiz (JMQ) across four age groups (i.e., younger juveniles, older juveniles, emerging adults, and adults) with varying histories of prior arrests. As expected, the two adult groups had fewer Miranda misconceptions than the two juvenile groups. Contrary to widespread assumptions, serious Miranda misconceptions commonly occur, even among detainees with intact verbal abilities and those with extensive arrest histories.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed). (Revised). Washington, DC: APA.
2.
ArnettJ. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469.
3.
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).
4.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act (1982).
5.
CohenA. O.BreinerK.SteinbergL.BonnieR. J.ScottE. S.Taylor-ThompsonK.CaseyB. J. (2016). When is an adolescent an adult? Assessing cognitive control in emotional and nonemotional contexts. Psychological Science, 27(4), 549–562. doi:10.1177/0956797615627625.
6.
CohenA. O.BreinerK.SteinbergL.BonnieR. J.ScottE. S.Taylor-ThompsonK.CaseyB. J. (2017). ‘When is an adolescent an adult? Assessing cognitive control in emotional and nonemotional contexts’: Corrigendum. Psychological Science, 28(3), 399–402. doi:10.1177/0956797617690343.
7.
ColwellL. H.CruiseK. R.GuyL. S.McCoyW. K.FernandezK.RossH. H. (2005). The influence of psychosocial maturity on male juvenile offenders' comprehension and understanding of the Miranda warning. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 444–454.
8.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994)., HMSO, London.
9.
DalyY. (2014). The right to silence: Inferences and interference. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 4, 59–80. doi:10.1177/0004865813497732.
10.
Dickersonv (2000). United States, 530 U.S. 428.
11.
EastwoodJ.SnookB.ChaulkS. J. (2010). Measuring reading complexity and listening comprehension of Canadian police cautions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 453–471. doi:10.1177/0093854810362053.
12.
EitleD.TaylorJ.PihK. K. (2010). Extending the life-course interdependence model: Life transitions and the enduring consequences of early self-derogation for young adult crime. Youth & Society, 41(4), 519–545. doi:10.1177/0044118X09337500.
13.
FarevMichaelC. (1979).444 U.S. 887.
14.
GoldsteinA. M.GoldsteinN. E. S. (2010). Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
GoldsteinN. E. S.ZelleH.GrissoT. (2012). The Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
16.
GoldsteinN. E.ZelleH.GrissoT. (2014). Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI): Manual for juvenile and adult evaluations. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
17.
GreenbergerE.JosselsonR.KnerrC.KnerrB. (1975). The measurement and structure of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 127–143. doi:10.1007/BF01537437.
18.
GrissoT. (1981). Juveniles' waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.
19.
HelmsJ. L. (2003). Analysis of Miranda reading levels across jurisdictions: Implications for evaluating waiver competency. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3, 25–37. doi:10.1300/J158v03n01_03.
20.
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
21.
J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011).
22.
KempK. A.GoldsteinN. S.ZelleH.ViljoenJ.HeilbrunK.DeMatteoD. (2017). Building consensus on the characteristics of developmental maturity: A cross-disciplinary survey of psychologists. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 16(1), 83–91.
23.
Mirandav (1966). Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.
24.
NesterovaI.MeikalisaA. (2012). The right to information about the right to silence as EU procedural guarantee in criminal proceedings and its impact on national legal systems. Days of Law International Conference., Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic: The Faculty of Law.
25.
OttoR. K.MusickJ. E.SherrodC. B. (2010). ILK: Inventory of Legal Knowledge professional manual. Lutz, FL: Professional Assessment Resources.
26.
PatryM. W.ConnorsC. J.Adams-QuackenbushN. M.SmithS. M. (2017). When both sides are mistaken: Layperson and legal professionals’ misconceptions of Canadian suspects’ legal rights upon arrest. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 32, 56–65. doi:10.1007/s11896-016-9198-5.
27.
RogersR. (2006, December). Miranda warnings and waivers: Conceptual and practical issues. 9th Circuit Public Defender Training Conference, Orlando.
28.
RogersR. (2008). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing…Emerging Miranda research and professional roles for psychologists. American Psychologist, 63, 776–787. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.776.
29.
RogersR. (2010). The Juvenile Miranda Quiz. Unpublished measure, University of North Texas.
30.
RogersR. (2011). Getting it wrong about Miranda rights: False beliefs, impaired reasoning, and professional neglect. American Psychologist, 66(8), 728–736. doi:10.1037/a0024988.
31.
RogersR.BlackwoodH. L.FiducciaC. E.SteadhamJ. A.DroginE. Y.RogstadJ. E. (2012a). Juvenile Miranda warnings: Perfunctory rituals or procedural safeguards?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 229–249. doi:10.1177/0093854811431934.
32.
RogersR.DroginE. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
33.
RogersR.DroginE. Y. (2016). Miranda warnings and waivers: Often heard but seldom understood. Champion, 40, 38–45, 63.
34.
RogersR.FiducciaC. E.DroginE. Y.SteadhamJ. A.ClarkJ. I.CramerR. J. (2013a). General knowledge and misknowledge of Miranda rights: Are effective Miranda advisements still necessary?Psychology, Public Policy, And Law, 19, 432–442. doi:10.1037/a0033964.
35.
RogersR.FiducciaC. E.RobinsonE. V.SteadhamJ. A.DroginE. Y. (2013b). Investigating the effects of repeated Miranda warnings: Do they perform a curative function on common Miranda misconceptions?Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31, 397–410. doi:10.1002/bsl.2071.
36.
RogersR.HazelwoodL. L.SewellK. W.HarrisonK. S.ShumanD. W. (2008). The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: A replication and vocabulary analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 124–136. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9091-y.
37.
RogersR.HenryS. A.SharfA. J.RobinsonE. V.WilliamsM. M. (2017). Dodging self-incriminations: An examination of feigned Miranda abilities on the SAMA. Assessment, 24(8), 975–986. doi:10.1177/1073191116634206.
38.
RogersR.RobinsonE. V.HenryS. A. (2015). Feigned adjudicative incompetence: Testing effectiveness of the ILK and SAMA with jail detainees. Assessment, 24, 173–182. doi:10.1177/1073191115605613.
39.
RogersR.RogstadJ. E.GillardN. D.DroginE. Y.BlackwoodH. L.ShumanD. W. (2010). “Everyone knows their Miranda rights:” Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 300–318. doi:10.1037/a0019316.
40.
RogersR.SewellK. W.DroginE. Y.FiducciaC. E. (2012b). Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
41.
RogersR.SharfA. J.ClarkJ. I.DroginE. Y.WinninghamD. B.WilliamsM. M. (2016). One American perspective on the rights of accused: An initial survey of Miranda rights in a broader context. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 34(4), 477–494. doi:10.1002/bsl.2240.
42.
RogersR.ShumanD. W.DroginE. Y. (2008). Miranda rights … and wrongs: Myths, methods, and model solutions. Criminal Justice, 23(2), 4–9.
43.
RogersR.SteadhamJ. A.CarterR. M.HenryS. A.DroginE. Y.RobinsonE. V. (2016). An examination of juveniles’ Miranda abilities: Investigating differences in Miranda recall and reasoning. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34, 515–538.
44.
RogersR.SteadhamJ. A.FiducciaC. E.DroginE. Y.RobinsonE. V. (2014). Mired in Miranda misconceptions: A study of legally involved juveniles at different levels of psychosocial maturity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32, 104–120. doi:10.1002/bsl.2099.
45.
RybaN. L.BrodskyS. L.ShlosbergA. (2007). Evaluations of the capacity to waive Miranda rights: A survey of practitioners’ use of the Grisso instruments. Assessment, 14, 300–309. doi:10.1177/1073191110730284
46.
SkinniderE.GordonF. (2001). The right to silence – International norms and domestic realities. Paper presented at the Sino Canadian International Conference on the Ratification and Implementation of Human Rights Covenants, Beijing, China
.
47.
SpronkenT.De VochtD. (2011). EU policy to guarantee procedural rights in criminal proceedings: “Step by step.”North Carolina Journal of International Law, 37, 444–485.
48.
ViljoenJ. L.KlaverJ.RoeschR. (2005). Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals. Law and Human Behavior, 29(3), 253–277. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-3613-2.
49.
ViljoenJ. L.ZapfP. A.RoeschR. (2007). Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: A comparison of legal standards. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 1–19. doi:10.1002/bsl.714.
50.
WechslerD. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
WechslerD. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence – Second Edition (WASI-II). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
53.
WechslerD.KaplanE.FeinD.KramerJ.MorrisR.DelisD.MaelenderA. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
54.
WoolardJ. L.ClearyH. D.HarvellS. S.ChenR. (2008). Examining adolescents' and their parents' conceptual and practical knowledge of police interrogation: A family dyad approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(6), 685–698. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9288-5.
